welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Random News Stories of Note
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 630, 631, 632 ... 822, 823, 824  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10587
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fucking. . . I'm just at a loss for this:


Bangladeshi Muslims torch Buddhist temples, homes

Quote:
COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh (AP) — Thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims set fire to at least 10 Buddhist temples and 40 homes in anger over a Facebook photo of a burned Quran before authorities restored order.
The situation was under control Sunday afternoon after extra security officers were deployed and the government banned public gatherings in the troubled areas near the southern border with Myanmar, said Nojibul Islam, a police chief in the coastal district of Cox's Bazar.

He said at least 20 people were injured in the attacks that started late Saturday after a photo of a burned copy of the Muslim holy book was posted on Facebook. The rioters blamed the photo on a local Buddhist boy, though it was not immediately clear if he actually posted the photo.

Bangladesh's popular English-language Daily Star newspaper quoted the boy as saying that the photo was mistakenly tagged on his Facebook profile. The newspaper reported that soon after the violence started, the boy's Facebook account was closed and police escorted him and his mother to safety.

Joinul Bari, chief government administrator in Cox's Bazar district, said authorities detained the boy's parents and were investigating.
Buddhists make up less than 1 percent of Muslim-majority Bangladesh's 150 million people.

The Bangladeshi violence follows protests that erupted in Muslim countries over the past month after a low-budget film, "Innocence of Muslims," produced by a U.S. citizen denigrated the Prophet Muhammad by portraying Islam's holiest figure as a fraud, womanizer and child molester.

Some two dozen demonstrators have been killed in protests that attacked symbols of U.S. and the West, including diplomatic compounds.

_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9559

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I may be 'spiritual' vaguely in the sense that I think that there is one thing that points to a greater tangibility of the self than exists in our corporeal forms, and that's the mystery of any individual agent having a perspective they cannot really explain; people get at it by saying stuff like "why am I me? why was I born me?" — oh, yeah, the typical boring mystery of individual consciousness. It's almost universally pointless to wonder that much about, because the part of it which makes me wonder is pretty impossible to answer and no individual can prove to any other individual that they even have it. But it still makes me think that something must be going on.

Bonus about the epistemology of the mystery is that it appears very compellingly unanswerable, so I can for the most part disregard any spiritual/spiritualist claim to an answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10587
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
I may be 'spiritual' vaguely in the sense that I think that there is one thing that points to a greater tangibility of the self than exists in our corporeal forms, and that's the mystery of any individual agent having a perspective they cannot really explain; people get at it by saying stuff like "why am I me? why was I born me?" — oh, yeah, the typical boring mystery of individual consciousness. It's almost universally pointless to wonder that much about, because the part of it which makes me wonder is pretty impossible to answer and no individual can prove to any other individual that they even have it. But it still makes me think that something must be going on.

Bonus about the epistemology of the mystery is that it appears very compellingly unanswerable, so I can for the most part disregard any spiritual/spiritualist claim to an answer.

It seems to me the best approach to take is a counterintuitive one, instead of seeking truth it seems more productive and possible to strive to understand what is false, although I think that has to do more with how are brains are hard wired evolutionarily. It's the reason why we tell 20 people about a bad experience but only 5 about a good one; it's more important to know which berries NOT to eat off the bush as opposed to which ones you can eat.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adyon wrote:

Yeah. I know the basic concepts. I also know that a group can choose to believe in parts of things without going against either. I'm not saying that they're fully living out their faiths, but to that end, Christianity is not what it was either, with plenty of blends of religions that accidentally got stuck in their as parts of the practice. Here in America, several sects decide how things work based on their own beliefs. For the asians that have adopted Christianity, but still believe there's something to the teaching of Buddhism, they simply take parts of both. For Christianity, they mostly sacrifice the idea that the soul is unique to one life. Then they believe that those lives can lead people to a point where they can reach a real peace. For instance if this was applied to Christianity, they could believe that people that never knew to worship Christianity's God would not be thrown in hell for never knowing, instead that they might be reborn. Really, based on the Christian teaching of a loving God, it fits in nicely. Anyway, that's how we talked about it, when I was in college, even with some Buddhist Christians. I'm sure it's all different per each individual of course, but the concept works for them.

But that's not the point of course. The point is the guy thinks the idea of having your own beliefs means you DON'T really believe anything.

I am not sure that was his only message here, or that it was his message at all.

As for the christian/buddhist above, unless they aware of the basics, they know that in the end both faith contradict one another; which imply in turn that the respectives values stem from different origins and that they may keeping using a word that doesn't mean what they think it means to quote Princess Bride. Not that I have any opinion on this, I've seen it too in Japan. Since religion often comes up as a safe topic to chat about, I long used a cop out and said I didn't took comparative religions as a course and don't feel qualified enough to comment.

I read his take on the mixing and matching issue as part fence sitting, part cowardliness, part leading nowhere. It's like taking Descarte's bet to another level and hoping it'll be enough to cover bases. The basic issue with faith is they're mutually exclusive but easy to grasp on one end or requires too much leaps of faiths at first then devoting time to understand those leaps on the other that picking up one's way of belief is a task of a lifetime. So, to him and the likes of "God spit out the lukewarm" types there cannot be honest mixing and matching. No WoW set for j00.

What this bloke doesn't get is that that kind of mindset was good enough for the middle-ages but kind of requires further explainations nowadays.


Adyon wrote:

That by believing mixed sections of different religions, you are better off either picking an older religion to side with or just believing in science alone. I believe that one's truths are more important, and if they mix the two, you're simply doing something that someone did in the past with older religions. Making a decision for how things work based on nothing written. You're filling in the blanks in your own way. Christianity has many concepts based on tradition rather than anything written in the Bible. So them choosing to believe both doesn't hurt anything, in my opinion. "Social norms to easily fit in", as you said, can be subjective to an area. To cling to old ideals and practices of Buddhism while embracing Christianity's doctrine works for them.


Are we talking about faith or about moral values here?. The main cause of flak atheists receives is how lacking of morals they are because they do not adhere to a faith. Christianity, like all major religions, had to "interpret" some previous tenets to fit in locally; has to fit politics in many cases (e.g Nicea's council on "consubstanliatity"). In many cases, like Japaneses or Koreans taking up Christianity, there is a lot more to cover than moral values that better fit one's taste to consider. That would derail this thread though imho.


Or, if picking up an old religion is bad, just pick a new one, Tom Cruise would appreciate Razz.


Adyon wrote:

Snorri wrote:
I don't actually know what spiritual but not religious even means.

Spiritual is basically the idea of simply believing in something. (easiest way I can think at the moment to explain) While it does overlap into religion, religion is basically the human construct of what to do with faith and spirituality. It's setting rules to follow meant as a group, rather than a personal basis. If your spiritual, you can have faith in your god and how things are. For example, in regards to Christianity, it'd mean you believed in Christ and everything the Bible says in regards to how it feels. You may base it completely on yourself or whatever you've been taught. You may have read the Bible yourself and made your own opinions. However, you don't necessarily have to believe and follow particular Church's doctrine, a religion.


Sorry but that doesn't add up to me. You believe in a religion but you don't have to agree with said religion of your choice?. Even Hinduism, who I believe is the easiest going faith I know would take umbrage to that.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adyon wrote:

Yeah. I know the basic concepts. I also know that a group can choose to believe in parts of things without going against either. I'm not saying that they're fully living out their faiths, but to that end, Christianity is not what it was either, with plenty of blends of religions that accidentally got stuck in their as parts of the practice. Here in America, several sects decide how things work based on their own beliefs. For the asians that have adopted Christianity, but still believe there's something to the teaching of Buddhism, they simply take parts of both. For Christianity, they mostly sacrifice the idea that the soul is unique to one life. Then they believe that those lives can lead people to a point where they can reach a real peace. For instance if this was applied to Christianity, they could believe that people that never knew to worship Christianity's God would not be thrown in hell for never knowing, instead that they might be reborn. Really, based on the Christian teaching of a loving God, it fits in nicely. Anyway, that's how we talked about it, when I was in college, even with some Buddhist Christians. I'm sure it's all different per each individual of course, but the concept works for them.

But that's not the point of course. The point is the guy thinks the idea of having your own beliefs means you DON'T really believe anything.

I am not sure that was his only message here, or that it was his message at all.

As for the christian/buddhist above, unless they aware of the basics, they know that in the end both faith contradict one another; which imply in turn that the respectives values stem from different origins and that they may keeping using a word that doesn't mean what they think it means to quote Princess Bride. Not that I have any opinion on this, I've seen it too in Japan. Since religion often comes up as a safe topic to chat about, I long used a cop out and said I didn't took comparative religions as a course and don't feel qualified enough to comment.

I read his take on the mixing and matching issue as part fence sitting, part cowardliness, part leading nowhere. It's like taking Descarte's bet to another level and hoping it'll be enough to cover bases. The basic issue with faith is they're mutually exclusive but easy to grasp on one end or requires too much leaps of faiths at first then devoting time to understand those leaps on the other that picking up one's way of belief is a task of a lifetime. So, to him and the likes of "God spit out the lukewarm" types there cannot be honest mixing and matching. No WoW set for j00.

What this bloke doesn't get is that that kind of mindset was good enough for the middle-ages but kind of requires further explainations nowadays.


Adyon wrote:

That by believing mixed sections of different religions, you are better off either picking an older religion to side with or just believing in science alone. I believe that one's truths are more important, and if they mix the two, you're simply doing something that someone did in the past with older religions. Making a decision for how things work based on nothing written. You're filling in the blanks in your own way. Christianity has many concepts based on tradition rather than anything written in the Bible. So them choosing to believe both doesn't hurt anything, in my opinion. "Social norms to easily fit in", as you said, can be subjective to an area. To cling to old ideals and practices of Buddhism while embracing Christianity's doctrine works for them.


Are we talking about faith or about moral values here?. The main cause of flak atheists receives is how lacking of morals they are because they do not adhere to a faith. Christianity, like all major religions, had to "interpret" some previous tenets to fit in locally; has to fit politics in many cases (e.g Nicea's council on "consubstanliatity"). In many cases, like Japaneses or Koreans taking up Christianity, there is a lot more to cover than moral values that better fit one's taste to consider. That would derail this thread though imho.


Or, if picking up an old religion is bad, just pick a new one, Tom Cruise would appreciate Razz.


Adyon wrote:

Snorri wrote:
I don't actually know what spiritual but not religious even means.

Spiritual is basically the idea of simply believing in something. (easiest way I can think at the moment to explain) While it does overlap into religion, religion is basically the human construct of what to do with faith and spirituality. It's setting rules to follow meant as a group, rather than a personal basis. If your spiritual, you can have faith in your god and how things are. For example, in regards to Christianity, it'd mean you believed in Christ and everything the Bible says in regards to how it feels. You may base it completely on yourself or whatever you've been taught. You may have read the Bible yourself and made your own opinions. However, you don't necessarily have to believe and follow particular Church's doctrine, a religion.


Sorry but that doesn't add up to me. You believe in a religion but you don't have to agree with said religion of your choice?. Even Hinduism, who I believe is the easiest going faith I know would take umbrage to that.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christianity is actually a really GOOD example for "not having to agree with everything," at least if you're looking at different sects. It's entirely possible to believe in Christ amd the Bible but not have a set of beliefs beyond those two things which are compatible with ANY official Christian sect. How do you feel about Old Testament laws? What do you think about the books after the death of Christ: divinely inspired, or just contemporary opinion pieces? How about Revelation: portents of he future, or anti-Roman political propaganda? How about just which books are legit and which are apocrypha? Should there be a pope? What is allegory and what is meant literally?

You see, you can easily be a Christian by the broad definition, but not agree with any of the formal Christian varianta.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10587
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean like what actually constitutes the bible? Wink

****************************************

Anywho, Here's a good example of why you don't put all of your eggs in one basket:

Diaper Shortage Possible After Plant Explosion
By Akiko Fujita | ABC News Blogs – 2 hrs 29 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/diaper-shortage-possible-plant-explosion-121636021--abc-news-topstories.html
Quote:
As so often happens, moms are left to deal with the mess.

An explosion at a Japanese chemical plant this weekend has the spectre of a global diaper shortage.

The plant in the coastal city of Himeji, operated by Nippon Shokubai Co., is one of the world's largest producers of acrylic acid, a primary ingredient used in disposable diapers. Powerful blasts rocked the facility Saturday, as firefighters were trying to control a blaze at one of the tanks containing the chemical. One firefighter died and 34 employees and first responders were injured in the blast.

Acrylic acid is a key component of superabsorbent polymers or SAP, which absorb large amounts of liquid. Nippon Shokubai makes roughly 20 percent of the world's SAP and maintains a 10 percent global market share of acrylic acid. The plant had been ramping up production to meet increasing global demand, especially from China, according to Japanese media reports.

Prior to the accident, the plant in the Hyogo Prefecture manufactured 460,000 tons of acrylic acid annually, supplying clients like Procter and Gamble, which relied on Nippon Shokubai for products it sold in Asia.
Roughly 4 million tons of acrylic acid are produced in the world, with the largest manufacturers in Germany and the U.S., according to Nippon Shokubai spokesman Akira Kurusu.

Kurusu said the company had already reached out to other producers to make sure their clients' needs are met, but said he could not comment on whether the plant closure in Japan would affect global costs and supply.

_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6514

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
I may be 'spiritual' vaguely in the sense that I think that there is one thing that points to a greater tangibility of the self than exists in our corporeal forms, and that's the mystery of any individual agent having a perspective they cannot really explain; people get at it by saying stuff like "why am I me? why was I born me?" — oh, yeah, the typical boring mystery of individual consciousness. It's almost universally pointless to wonder that much about, because the part of it which makes me wonder is pretty impossible to answer and no individual can prove to any other individual that they even have it. But it still makes me think that something must be going on.

Bonus about the epistemology of the mystery is that it appears very compellingly unanswerable, so I can for the most part disregard any spiritual/spiritualist claim to an answer.


A while ago (about middle school after several disastrously failed attempts by my "friends" to drag me kicking and screaming into the church) I realized that nobody will ever have all of the answers. I chose to believe in questions instead. Questions won't lie. They can, at worst, mislead or be the wrong question for any given situation... but they don't lie. They will ultimately lead you towards learning more. You can't just give up on the questions at that point, though, because sometimes answers change. So, I may not be able to know everything, but as long as I keep asking questions I'll know everything I can at any given time and that is better than knowing nothing at all.

Interestingly, most of the questions that are most important to me have nothing to do with religion. I consider it a belief system none the less.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6083
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Questions won't lie.


why is Obama a Nazi Kenyan socialist Muslim gay pedophile Satanist made of vegemite and the tears of children?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Snorri wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Snorri wrote:
Dogen wrote:
What about a sort of pseudo-Buddhist sense of interconnectedness borne of our singular origin as star stuff and the unlikely probability of our existence which engenders a sense that, through no act of its own, life is unique and therefore special?


Nonsense or bullshit, call it whatever you like.

What about it, exactly, lacks sense?


None of it actually tells us anything. Shit can be unique and special however much it wants, but so what?

But belief isn't knowledge, so it doesn't need to tell you anything. Reason, experience, perception, they tell you things. Belief is simply how you feel about the things you either know or don't know. I believe family is important. I also know that the emotional support and encouragement offered by a support structure such as a family correlates with better emotional outcomes in life. So in that case belief and knowledge coincide. But I also believe life is neat, and that has no direct relation to my knowledge. It's just a reflection of my regard and sentimental nature.


Belief, for a large amount of people, does inform. If "spiritual" is not actually connected to any sense of a set of beliefs, but always requires you explaining what you mean by it then I fail to see the point of the term.

I find life fascinating and would be willing to admit it's special, I see no point in calling that spiritual though. Atheist describes me perfectly because I simply do not believe in any supernatural shit. Me being an atheist does not mean I'm a nihilist.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly I've always found the assertion that atheists are inherently less moral than religious folk to be telling. I mean, if that were true, it would mean that the religious types were only being nice because they wanted to avoid punishment, not because they're simply good people.

Relatedly, I have a problem with any ethical system to which adding "don't be a dick without a really good reason ('because you can' and 'because she's a witch!' are not good reasons)" would lead to a contradiction. See: objectivism.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Feiticeira



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
Honestly I've always found the assertion that atheists are inherently less moral than religious folk to be telling. I mean, if that were true, it would mean that the religious types were only being nice because they wanted to avoid punishment, not because they're simply good people.


and there's no limit to how violent or wicked a person can be when they believe they doing God's good work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jinx



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3639
Location: America, fuck yeah!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amen!
_________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
- Charles Darwin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely agreed.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
Christianity is actually a really GOOD example for "not having to agree with everything," at least if you're looking at different sects. It's entirely possible to believe in Christ amd the Bible but not have a set of beliefs beyond those two things which are compatible with ANY official Christian sect. How do you feel about Old Testament laws? What do you think about the books after the death of Christ: divinely inspired, or just contemporary opinion pieces? How about Revelation: portents of he future, or anti-Roman political propaganda? How about just which books are legit and which are apocrypha? Should there be a pope? What is allegory and what is meant literally?

You see, you can easily be a Christian by the broad definition, but not agree with any of the formal Christian varianta.


I don't see how this is relevant. Christian infighting is like the Scottsman fallacy to me, always amusing as it nitpicks ceaseleslly. It may be very important for some individuals, but it doesn't help a (e.g) Jain or Buddhist who don't roots neither of their faith in the revealed religion.

That was not what the guy was arguing about, he didn't mention catholicism vs mormons or hanbalists vs malakists. He mentionned a mix up ranging from christianity to Tao, I'm pretty sure he forgot Jedism or Pastafarian just because he didn't know those two existed as faith.

----

Quote:

why is Obama a Nazi Kenyan socialist Muslim gay pedophile Satanist made of vegemite and the tears of children?


The rest I could let go as normal human failings, but Vegemite!!!...
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 630, 631, 632 ... 822, 823, 824  Next
Page 631 of 824

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group